From the University of Copenhagen: Global boom in hydropower expected this decade
An unprecedented boom in hydropower dam construction is underway, primarily in developing countries and emerging economies. While this is expected to double the global electricity production from hydropower, it could reduce the number of our last remaining large free-flowing rivers by about 20 percent and pose a serious threat to freshwater biodiversity. A new database has been developed to support decision making on sustainable modes of electricity production. It is presented today at the international congress Global Challenges: Achieving Sustainability hosted by the University of Copenhagen.
Hydro electric power station.
Photo: Yonezawa-Shi, Yamagata, Japan
The intensified demand for electricity from renewable sources has kick-started the hydropower development into a new era: Following a period of a flattening trend, an unprecedented number of dams for electricity production is currently under construction or planned worldwide. However, the boom occurs primarily in developing countries and emerging economies in South America, Southeast Asia and Africa, that also hold some of the world’s most important sites for freshwater biodiversity.
“Hydropower is an integrated part of transitioning to renewable energy and currently the largest contributor of renewable electricity. However, it is vital that hydropower dams do not create a new problem for the biodiversity in the world’s freshwater systems, due to fragmentation and the expected changes in the flow and sediment regime. That is why we have compiled available data on future expected hydropower dams – to form a key foundation for evaluating where and how to build the dams and how to operate them sustainably”, says Prof. Dr. Christiane Zarfl (now Universität Tübingen) who, together with her colleagues, performed the study at the Leibniz-Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries (IGB) in Berlin. She is presenting the database today at the congress Global Challenges: Achieving Sustainability.
Hydropower may double in electricity capacity
Renewables account for 20 percent of the global electricity production today, with hydropower contributing 80 percent of the total share. An expected 3700 major dams may more than double the total electricity capacity of hydropower to 1,700 GW within the next two decades.
Global spatial distribution of future hydropower dams, either under construction (blue dots; 17%) or planned (red dots; 83%). Credit: Aquatic Sciences (DOI: 10.1007/s00027-014-0377-0).Click on picture to download in full resolution.
Given that all planned dams are realized, China will remain the global leader in hydropower dam construction although their share of total future global hydropower production will decline from currently 31 to 25 percent, due to increases in other parts of the world.
The Amazon and La Plata basins in Brazil will have the largest total number of new dams in South America, whereas the Ganges-Brahmaputra basin (mainly India and Nepal) and the Yangtze basin in China will face the highest dam construction in Asia.
“When building new dams, it is important to follow a systematic management approach that considers the ecological, social, and economic consequences of multiple dams within a river basin”, says Prof. Dr. Klement Tockner, head of IGB, who is leading the Institute´s research activities on sustainable hydropower development.
“We expect to launch the database in BioFresh, the platform for global freshwater biodiversity (www.freshwaterbiodiversity.eu) and hope to see our results as a valuable reference basis for scientists and decision makers in supporting sustainable hydropower development”, says Prof. Dr. Christiane Zarfl.
The full study will be published in the renowned international journal Aquatic Sciences: Research across Boundaries.
Reference: Zarfl C, Lumsdon AE, Berlekamp J, Tydecks L, Tockner K, (in press) A global boom in hydropower dam construction. Aquatic Sciences.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Hydro power in the cooler latitudes can be very useful – however I think Central African countries would be much better off building coal fired power stations instead. I think there was a couple of studies done on the quality of water in some of the new African reservoirs that showed that limiting the flow and having large bodies of still water was damaging to the region around the river and dangerous to drink. It also highlighted the fact that the ‘environmental impact assessments’ that the dam builders have to compile are a complete joke!
According to wikipedia, hydro accounts for 16% of global electricity generation – 3,427 terrawatts (2010).
According to the source below, global hydro potential is 14,500 tw. Which would be over half of current consumption.
http://www.hydroworld.com/articles/print/volume-21/issue-6/articles/african-hydropower/hydro-in-africa-navigating-a-continent.html
Coal generates 40% of current electricity globally. Hydro could eliminate 80% of coal power plants (ignoring transmission and a few other things).
The comments above that hydro has limited potential are wrong, and I assume ideologically motivated.
In Africa in particular, there is a straight up choice between hydro and coal for grid generation
As a hydropower expert here in New Zealand, I was interested in noting that the article showed five dams planned for the South Island of New Zealand. Of the five shown, one is probably going ahead, but it is for irrigation, not hydro power. The other 4 indicated were all abandoned some years ago. That suggested that this paper is well out of date, but when I looked for the actual paper I find this:
Received: 8th October 2014. Accepted 15th October 2014.
That must be the shortest Pal reviewed paper ever.
Same goes for some of the proposed projects in Chile & Argentina shown on the map.
Test
[Please enter ALL test posts into the “Test” thread. See the links at the top of the page. .mod]
OK, trouble!
Just got off a twitter feeding with Mikie Mann.
He has a computer code on this and his data from water gene code that shows water when agitated as in
a hydro dam and a turbine all the CO2 adsorbed for all time will be released and that his settled science shows a to rise of avg. World wide of 20 F and sea rise of 60 feet.
Stop now or you will all die!
Where do we send the checks Mike.
Eric Worrall October 25, 2014 at 4:44 pm
Globally, hydro supplies about 7% of global energy consumption. This is far from a trivial amount of energy, and if it had to be supplied from fossil fuels it would represent a huge cost.
However, for many countries the hydropower contributions are much higher. About a fifth of the countries get 20% or more of their energy from hydro. For Norway, it is 65%.
Finally, the beauty of hydro is that operating costs are extremely low, and are not tied to rises in fossil fuel costs. This means that hydro can supply cheap energy to poor individuals and countries in an economical way that no other energy source can begin to equal.
So I fear that your claim runs aground on a reef of facts, facts which show that hydro in many cases and many places makes a major difference, particularly in the lives of the poor.
w.
Let’s trade, Willis. For every dam you advocate, how about you give me one giant wind farm in one of your sailing grounds. Deal?
What do you have against birds & bats?
@ur momisugly milodonharlani
What do you have against the people living on and near rivers.
Seems we may be mixing apples with oranges?
For hydro to reduce current fossil fuel use it has to supply existing end users.
How many of the planned dams are going to provide new users?
If it is as cheap as you say, then I was wrong Willis – thank you for correcting me. Even if hydro only produces a seed from which an economy can grow, then it makes a difference.
You might think that the Green Shirts would support hydro as they do wind & solar, but you’d be wrong. Apparently fish which might suffer from dams are more important to them than are birds & bats being slaughtered wholesale by windmills & solar panels.
Even the otherwise rational Chileans have scrapped a major hydro project over environmental concerns:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2014/06/140610-chile-hidroaysen-dam-patagonia-energy-environment/
Another large proposed project can’t go ahead because Doug Tompkins, co-founder of North Face & ESPRIT clothing companies, has bought up much of Chilean & Argentine Patagonia to preserve it from development. That’s OK, but small scale hydro projects can actually improve habitat for many species. Apparently these are verboten by Green Shirts, too.
Give me a break. GO Tomkins!
HYDRO is completely disruptive to the environment. Why don’t you first make like an amoeba and split – atoms. Hydro is lazy. Nuclear is it….
The answer to the Doug Tompkins problem is called Public Domain.
Eric Worrall October 25, 2014 at 4:44 pm
The scope of hydro power will always be severely limited – because it simply isn’t energy dense enough to make a difference.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Of course it makes a difference, it just depends on where and for who. (whom?).
If you have a waterway suitable for a hydro dam in the area that you need power, it makes sense. Coal isn’t so severely limited as water by your argument, but what if you have no coal in the area, but you do have a river suitable for a hydro dam. Does it then not make sense?
Not to mention that with the World Bank refusing to lend money to third world countries for building coal fired power plants forces a lot of them to consider hydro even if it isn’t optimal, simply because they can fund the project even though coal would make more sense.
Whom, 🙂
Somewhat related, pumped storage hydro (PSH):
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/08/27/2524501/hydro-pumped-storage-climate-change/
This is generally old school technology. PSH can work if the price differential between peak and low demand is high enough. It can work on the economics if the price differential is high enough. It may be justified looking at only conventional power generation while also justified for renewables. While we may think PSH is inefficient, a white elephant, Dominion Generation (traded on the NYSE) thought otherwise: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_County_Pumped_Storage_Station
PSH also has a very short windup time when its upper reservoir is filled, allowing to provide quick backup power if another plant has to go offline suddenly.
It is cheaper to build a new hydro dam and let the sun do the pumping. Unless of course the output can be labelled green and subsidised.
Fortunately, the Chattooga in SC/GA and a few other rivers in the southeast escaped the dam builders, You may have seen the movie filmed there in the 70’s…Deliverance. I paddled it first in 79 and it was awesome. It still is…https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5tjeCiRRnY
The dams do not stop you from “shooting the ‘hooch'”.
That’s what California should be doing. They can incorporate fish ladders if necessary.
As Forrest Gump says “stupid is as stupid does” If CA wants to have more electricity and more water reserves, they’ll have to do this. Let’s face it, wind and solar ain’t gunna cut it CA.
Exactly, If you want hydro, let’s do so first in CA, say the Smith River and then more hydro in MA, NY, CT, NJ. After we dam their few remaining free flowing rivers, by all means lets also do wind farms in Nantucket, Long Island Sound, the Maine coast (everywhere), and especially the Chesapeake near Washington, but most importantly in San Francisco Bay. It’s windy there. Let’s build lots of wind machines first in SF. That will help fuel THOSE PEOPLE on the east and west coasts.
the very first hydroelectric scheme built in 1878 is still operational and indeed is being augmented and upgraded;. It also lit light bulbs long before edison.
http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/cragside/visitor-information/article-1355850558148/
Hydropower is an integrated part of transitioning to renewable energy
And tractor production in the Ukraine is up by 40% …
All energy production has a downside. How come the Green tendency is always to pick the most environmentally damaging one?
One thing that has always puzzled me about the climate tin-foil hat brigade and their obsession with reducing energy consumption is why they ignore the obvious means of reducing energy use.
In the UK we call it double summer time. (GMT +2)
Not one green organisation or individual has ever proposed it. I wonder why?
Wouldn’t you love to own an electrical plant. It’s the only industry which wants you to use less of their product, tell you it will save you money and then turn to the “government” to raise prices because they are not selling enough product. What a scam.
There is growing realisation among developing countries that the global green agenda is a racist agenda aimed at stopping development in its tracks. This lies behind for instance the fightback by India against the arch eco-imperialists Greenpeace. Historic grievances and inferiority complex related to colonial-imperialist times are a large part of what lies behind for instance Islamic extremism. There is a danger that if environmental politics revives the colonial interference of the past then this could exacerbate cultural reactions such as Islamic radicalisation.
They are also realising that climate summits promise many billions in adaptive aid, but somehow never deliver. Suckers, money up front please.
The scouring of landscapes in floods is why most dam’s are built, power is secondary. Let’s keep our landscapes and protect them from floods. It can be payed for with power generation.
I live in The sierras in California where hydro provides 14.5% of our electricity. The reservoirs that were created to make electricity and store water, in my mind, are fantastic. They bring biodiversity to those areas, they give recreation and joy to many thousands who visit them and the down stream rivers are fine, even better now that flow and temperature can be somewhat regulated.
Some sections of river are flooded and it changed the environment there, but around these lakes even more animals thrive. I perceive very little downside if these damns are thoughtfully conceived.
Yes, I know that is a big ‘if’ in many countries.
I was lucky enough to be nearby one of these, from this same dam. It was 35 years ago and leaves an impression still.
The video doesn’t do it justice (I was on the opposite side):
Mark
“To top that off we have reactor technology that would dramatically reduce that waste, unfortunately Carter cancel the breeder reactor program and Clinton canceler IFR project, When IFR runs that reactor produced virtually no waste. ”
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not against nuclear power.
Why would two progress socialist be against both dams and nuclear? (Sorry, it is Nevada not Utah that has the empty storage facility.)
Two things I noticed from the map, Conus has none and if all that are planed worldwide are completed Global sea levels should fall. All them dams will hold a lot of water.
Any calculations on estimated water capacity??
Not all hydro requires big dams. “Run of River” hydro projects feature head instead of storage, so there is a different set of pros and cons. Switzerland is a leader in this field:
http://www.swissworld.org/en/economy/energy/renewable_energy/hydropower/
Hydro is great, New Zealand (NZ) is supplied by it in bundles, and yet has some of the most expensive power in the world. I used to live with someone who used modelling to calculate dam shift in and earthquake. When I was looking to buy a rural propertly in NZ I was looking for a property with a stream, nearly got there. I found that, for my situation, a small ~300mm turbine with a drop of ~2m would provide all power needs.
Ethiopia is now building the largest hydro project in Africa, which has downstream countries a bit “worried”.
For domestic use, Micro Hydro is the way to go.
Had a 350 watt water wheel that won hands down against a 1.5kw wind thingy. Ran 24/365.
Maybe not ideal for vast metropoli but for us country folk, perfect.
On the other hand, if you retrofitted the waste pipes in tower blocks with turbines…………..
There’s nothing with so much practical application that environmental luddites can’t find someway to demonize it. But talk about the real-world drawbacks and shortfalls of their two favorite, “free” and “limitless” energy sources — solar and wind and it falls on deaf ears. “See no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil” is virtually the green motto regarding wind and solar.
Hydro can also be used for energy storage by pumping water into small reservoirs and catch basins during times of low demand and letting it flow through turbines during times of peak demand. The water can be pumped uphill using wind and solar, as well, if you so desire.
Finally … some common sense. But hey … this is going to anger Greenpeace and WWF and all those other eco-activists who are totally against dams. Just watch the ‘tree huggers’ come out in protest.
Australia has plans for more dams after the debacle of wasting many billions of dollars building costly desalination plants by former Green/Labor governments (since booted out) that are not providing water but will cost ratepayers for many decades to come.